Since writing on intelligence and
race, many who know me and that I am capable of Aspergerian levels of
critical thought, such as the boss of Science2.0, cannot understand how I, the quantum
relativist unforgiving of any simplification, can be suddenly so naïve as to,
for instance when discussing IQ, neglect different kinds of intelligence and “creativity”.
Such dismissals occur in spite of, as it is relevant for this particular
example of discussing intelligence, my discussing analytic-verbal versus spatial intelligence and “emotional
intelligence”, and also knowing from personal experience what can be described
as a “lack of creativity/critical thinking” of East Asians (I teach East Asians
for 15 years, a decade in China!).
The following may help you with whether people such as me just got old, demented
and “racist”.

I first talk about Ron Unz’s “How Social
Darwinism Made Modern China” [The American Conservative, March/April 2013], but
not because it supports “social Darwinism” or because lefties are triggered to cry
about “racism” when reading the phrase “innate tendencies”. Pointing out how “progressives”
deny facts, such low hanging fruit I leave to those who survive in the
expanding “look how stupid liberals are” market niche. They love Ron because he
dares to write “innate tendencies”. However, Ron emphasizes

“… cultural software being far more
flexible and responsive than any gradual shifts in innate tendencies …”

Hidden in the small print, in footnote 34, Ron
admits that his analysis is actually wrong, that the truth is yet more “racist”
– I quote and then translate:

“Perhaps the strongest evidence against
this causal model for the origins of current Chinese achievement comes from the
difficulty of extending it to the other highly successful peoples of East Asia. Both the Japanese and
the Koreans have done remarkably well in their economic and technological
advancement, and also as small immigrant racial minorities in America and
elsewhere. However, there is no evidence that rural life in either country had
any of the major features possibly so significant for Chinese history, such as
a total lack of feudal caste structure, an exceptionally commercialized system
of agricultural production and land tenure, and the massive universal downward mobility
due to equal division of property among male heirs. Indeed, Japanese society in
particular had always been dominated by a rigidly aristocratic military caste, totally
different from the exam-based meritocratic elite governing China. So
to the extent that the modern behavior and performance of Japanese and Koreans closely
resembles that of Han Chinese, we must look to other cultural, economic, or
genetic factors in explaining this similarity rather than the legacy of the
socioeconomic system discussed in this article, such as the “cold winters”
hypothesis of Richard Lynn and others. See Rindermann (2012) p. 363.”

In other words, all his reasons for why China’s
culture made the modern Chinese are insignificant and largely confusing cause
and effect, because the other North East Asians share the most relevant
characteristics, proving that race is the dominant factor.

Sorry guys, but after all the many and highly
sophisticated papers that I have seen by now about suchlike, I stay with what seems just too
simplistic to be reasonable:

Most of everything here relevant and what happens
in the world today can be derived straight from that rape is a successful
procreation strategy for human apes in Africa, but the more variable the climate is,
the more future anticipating and thus caring and intelligent the apes become,
period. That I am currently surrounded by the most intelligent and civilized apes
(that evolved at a certain location, i.e. not Ashkenazim Jews) on this planet
of the apes, the Han race, comes straight from the circumstance of that I sit
here writing this wrapped in electrical blankets while not even two weeks ago I
was still swatting mosquitoes. (Dear "Richard Lynn and others", it is not “cold
winters”, but frigging cold winters alternating with f’n hot summers, i.e.
*variable* climate; the arctic is not worse than the Sahara once animals
are adapted; cold waters are teeming with life.)

Denying simple truths is not left or right,
but human. We are *evolved to be* so deluded about ourselves that we can never
fully grasp how deluded and constrained we are. We are evolved to reject such
and instead think to be responsible/rational/reasonable actors. This is “social
Darwinism”. Fashionably edgy inconvenient truths sell well, but only if still “reasonable”.
Publishing in “learned journals” needs displays of sophistication, and so
Dunkel/Dutton/Meisenberg etc. come up with all kinds of interesting
explanations, just like their lefty sociologist adversaries, often hiding the truth
against better knowledge just the same. Stuff needs to seem novel, and so Woodley-of-Menie is supposedly now the revolutionary shining light revealing what we otherwise would
perhaps have never known, except for that most of it was known when
people where on average still more intelligent (yes, they were, IQ is in decline!) and still knew about agriculture
and the breeding of livestock, before such knowledge was conveniently widely “forgotten”
over the past century. I knew most of it already as a child, from people such
as Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989), and the rest is obvious if your brain is
sufficiently high functioning autistic so as to be sufficiently immune to modern
society’s brainwashing.

Look – why do you think that in times past,
for example in China, the family of the convicted, especially on the mother’s side, was
killed along with the most dangerous criminals such as traitors? Because people
were evil and hated women while we today are so nice? No my friend, the answer
is: They still knew that apes are just as genetically determined as any other
animal, and that dysgenics destroys society. Especially in the West, this is
denied, and behold, surprise surprise, what a coincidence, the West goes down
the drain. The West now *inevitably* decays; this is known for about two to
three generations. (Sadly, too many Chinese also do not want to see it, because
being proud to be number one and pretending that you are number one because you
worked so hard feels so much better than facing reality, that your
competitor killed himself because he was so proud to be number one that he
forgot reality and you copy him at every turn. So, dear China,
you better wake up. Yes, the Han are still 91.5 percent of the Chinese
population, but so were the Caucasian non-Hispanic Whites in the USA still
in 1950, too. No matter you were here 500 years or 5000; messing up a single
generation can be fatal.)

Similar to this “simplistic racist
nonsense”, the g-factor for general intelligence is, although being only a
single dimension, almost all one needs to further consider in order to scientifically understand
current problems – other issues are almost negligible, no matter how much you
desire that it could not possibly be this simple, that one cannot neglect
hundreds of other factors in order to model and predict crime rates, or “over-representation” of males in mathematics, the GDP of nations or the trajectory
of whole cultures. (I am too lazy to add links just to appear more scientific - go find it yourself - I wrote plenty about it, so did others.)

This is
characteristic for fundamental insight. I did not change, and there is very
little difference here with my whistle blowing on the memristor hype for
example, or my work on rejecting pseudo-science in quantum mechanics, or … gee
there is so much I did to destroy my career, I start becoming sad trying to
remember. It is the same every time: That which you need to fundamentally
understand is usually relatively simple, but this is rejected, and often
precisely because it is simple, too simple to sell your thoughts as novel,
too unsophisticated to be published in academia, too
disrespectful to the heaps of nonsense that are published instead and demand to be positively acknowledged, too simple
to fill weekly columns or yet another book, and too simple to be admitted as one’s
own mistake.

---------------------Remark: On my claim that "too many Chinese also do not want to see it, because ..."Apart from what I personally experience (1), the appearance of being anti minorities can bring harsh repercussions in China (2), and the "Communist Party of China" is still somewhat preoccupied avoiding going the way of its Russian equivalent, so they focus on the fall of Russia rather than the fall of the West(3), see for example William Wan: "In China, Soviet Union’s failure drives decisions on reform." [Washington Post, March 23, 2013]

However, Chinese scholars grouped under the heading “Second-Generation Ethnic Policy,” favor state-driven assimilation, the minority nationalities shedding their ethnic identities and becoming absorbed by the Han Chinese, see for example Angang Hu (Tsinghua University, director of the Institute of Public Administration), Hu Lianhe (special researcher of Tsinghua University National Research Institute): "The Bedrock of the Chinese Dream Is the Integration of the Peoples of China into a Single Nation-Race."(胡鞍钢，清华大学国情研究院院长、清华大学公共管理学院教授; 胡联合，清华大学国情研究院特约研究员: "中国梦的基石是中华民族的国族一本化")

Chinese researchers are also more free than Western researchers to research dysgenics and have published on how the average IQ also in China has saturated the (mainly nutritional in my opinion) Flynn effect and starts to decline, see for example Mingrui Wang, John Fuerst, Jianjun Ren: "Evidence of dysgenic fertility in China." [Intelligence 57(2016)15–24]Mingrui Wang is at the Beijing University of Agriculture.

Comments

"Similar to this “simplistic racist nonsense”, the g-factor for general intelligence is, although being only a single dimension, almost all one needs to further consider in order to scientifically understand current problems – other issues are almost negligible, no matter how much you desire that it could not possibly be this simple, that one cannot neglect hundreds of other factors in order to model and predict crime rates, or “over-representation” of males in mathematics, the GDP of nations or the trajectory of whole cultures. (I am too lazy to add links just to appear more scientific - go find it yourself - I wrote plenty about it, so did others.)"
Although you're certainly largely correct about this (g being the most significant predictor for many social problems) I suspect that other aspects of human personality (say conscientiousness) could complement g-factor in prediction except for two problems:
1) We - as of this time - are forced to rely on the peer reporting to estimate conscientiousness/most other aspects of human personality. This biases down the correlation between personality trait and social outcome. Potentially certain traits might explain more of the residual variance then they do now (But still dwarfed in comparison to g).
2) Even if we discover other predictors (conscientiousness, perhaps certain other human personality traits) that are socially relevant they too are just as genetically determined (Perhaps less so - but how much of that is measurement error driving down the correlation) and likely have experienced similar selection pressures as g.
In the end the "problem" is that g explains such a significant portion of the variation in societal metrics such as crime, etc that others only really complement our understanding of societal metrics. It would be useful to incorporate other factors into our social models but by rejecting g you reject the ability to understand social problems. That's where we are... and where we continue to head.

Tsk tsk. On your comments regarding rape and apes and africa and Asian and such...

I suppose the armies of Chi Shi Juang Di, Ghengis Khan, or even Hirohito never raped anyone? They are all perfectly behaved and infallible unlike the rampantly raping murderers of Africa.

There is a simpler explanation for all of this.

There is an ebb and flow to history. At one time Europe was in the dark, then came out and ruled the world. At one or two times the middle east and Africa lead the western world in learning. At one time the Aztecs and Mayans had astronomy to beat all that was being done at the time. At one time America had pre columbian cities, which fell, then rose up again and will likely fall again.

China, Korea, Japan, and India are rising for good reason. However, for a long time they were not keeping up. They would admit as much.

IT is a big mistake to look at how things are now and think they will always be that way and try to explain them as part of some evolutionary process. 100 years from now Africa could have it's stuff together again and China and Japan will have destroyed eachother in a nuclear exchange. Then folks will want to explain why a resurgent Nigerian Empire, Egypt or "union of South Africa" or something is populated with superior men. Then I will write a comment like this one, if I am still alive, to remind them that when I was in my 30's that Africa was a craphole. All glory and success are fleeting.

An army raping (and being instructed to do so!) is the same as individual's sexual behaviors?Africa led the world in learning? What are you talking about? The rulers of Egypt that forbade blacks to enter their territory for anything else but slave work? Stop pretending you are a scientist.